Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v4 proxmox-backup 2/3] node: status: added bootmode

[Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:02:18PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> 
> On 11/27/23 14:53, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:28:14PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > > 
> > > On 11/27/23 14:10, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#[api]
> > > > > +#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Default)]
> > > > And Clone + Copy
> > > Agree
> > > > > +#[serde(rename_all = "kebab-case")]
> > > > > +/// The possible BootModes
> > > > > +pub enum BootMode {
> > > > > +    /// The BootMode is EFI/UEFI
> > > > > +    Efi,
> > > > > +    /// The BootMode is Legacy BIOS
> > > > > +    #[default]
> > > > ^ do we *need* Default on this type? And why is Bios the default?
> > > Removed it. Was enabled on the `NodeStatus` struct and cascaded down, but
> > > afaik we can remove it
> > > on the `NodeStatus` struct as well and get rid of it.
> > IMO this is one of those options where we can't have a default, so if a
> > struct containing it needs to be Default, this value should be an
> > Option<> in there instead.
> Agree.
> 
> But what do you think about the SecureBoot enum in the proxmox_sys crate?
> Currently I have this:
> 
> #[derive(Clone, Copy)]
> pub enum SecureBoot {
>     /// SecureBoot is enabled
>     Enabled,
>     /// SecureBoot is disabled
>     Disabled,
> }
> impl SecureBoot {
>     pub fn query() -> SecureBoot {
>         lazy_static::lazy_static!(
>             static ref SECURE_BOOT: Mutex<Option<SecureBoot>> =
> Mutex::new(None);
>         );
> 
>         let mut last = SECURE_BOOT.lock().unwrap();
>         let value = last.or_else(|| {
>             // Check if SecureBoot is enabled
>             // Attention: this file is not seekable!
>             // Spec: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/03_Boot_Manager.html?highlight=8be4d#globally-defined-variables
>             let efivar = std::fs::File::open(
> "/sys/firmware/efi/efivars/SecureBoot-8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c",
>             );
>             if let Ok(mut file) = efivar {
>                 let mut buf = [0; 5];
>                 let Ok(_) = file.read_exact(&mut buf) else {
>                         return Some(SecureBoot::Disabled);
>                     };
>                 if buf[4] == 1 {
>                     Some(SecureBoot::Enabled)
>                 } else {
>                     Some(SecureBoot::Disabled)
>                 }
>             } else {
>                 Some(SecureBoot::Disabled)
>             }
>         });
>         *last = value;
>         value.unwrap()
>     }
> }
> 
> Although we could make the function return a bool (then we'd have a
> free-standing function again), which would be simpler... (+ we convert it in
> pbs to a bool anyway)
> One advantage of my approach is that we are more flexible, could add another
> option, rename them, etc...

Sorry for the late reply.
IMO both are fine. After all, if we need to change away from a bool we
can just mark the function as #[deprecated] and move on from there with
compiler help.
I don't think we'd really lose any flexibility if in the end we turn it
into a boolean on the API facing side anyway, as a change there would be
an API break after all, while an internal change does not matter that
much.